In praise of... Arthur

By the time that the youngest Mr Cameron begins to contemplate a Conservative political career of his own in the early 2030s it may have become rather clearer than it is today whether Arthur will be a name that does the business for him in mid-21st century Britain.

From the perspective of 2036, Arthur may be the height of cool while names like Zak, Boris and even Dave may by then seem as dated as Elvis and Marlon do today. From the perspective of 2006, though, Arthur still has an unmistakeably retro feel. Whether the choice of name offers some wider clue about the "real" instincts of the baby's politically enigmatic father is not certain.

But Arthur is certainly ripe for as much rebranding as the Tory party. A century ago, Arthur meant Balfour, Conan Doyle or Sullivan, all upstanding but privately-troubled people. In more recent times, the likes of Askey, Miller and Ransome apart, Arthur has meant mainly Scargill, which has been trouble of a different kind. Assuming that the Camerons have not named their latest in honour of either Rimbaud or Schopenhauer, which would be unusual in Witney or even Notting Hill, there is only one Arthur who counts - the once and future king who represents so much of the British collective unconscious. There is no more magic-laden name in these islands than Arthur - and the leader who will rise again and restore the ancient order of things to its former greatness also seems a suitable name for this latest Tory boy.